Comments
zebulon99 t1_j415519 wrote
Electing a speaker is usually very uncontrovesial so people are willing to compromise. Its not like the speaker is running the country.
Ferelar t1_j4g2u3g wrote
Granted, they ARE third in line for the presidency and set significant policy agendas
beenoc t1_j415r2j wrote
Don't forget that the makeup of Congress is known 2 months before they actually are sworn in and vote for Speaker. The meetings and discussions don't start when the voting starts, they start the Wednesday morning in the second week of November.
chicagotim1 t1_j421nnv wrote
That's a fair point, but in practice we only have 2 parties and each one coalesce behind "their guy" and whatever party has more Representatives gets their guy.
HobbitFoot t1_j41kj7s wrote
On the flip side, you have the Senate and the fillabuster rule.
60% seems to cause a lot more complaints.
ZetaZeta t1_j43u74b wrote
No, it's more concerning that individuals elected by wildly different ideologies don't disagree like this more often.
Debate, dissent, and compromise should be commonplace. It's actually about time there was some minute level of dissonance in congress rather than the uniparty machine we've had for a lifetime.
ELVEVERX t1_j44kztp wrote
>No, it's more concerning that individuals elected by wildly different ideologies don't disagree like this more often.
This is a procedural decision it's not like debating legislation.
TattooHelpPlease2 t1_j41628l wrote
Yes, I prefer this. This is actual democracy at work, and representatives making a splash as opposed to just going along with what's expected. Some good concessions were achieved by holding out against this establishment Republican.
jakart3 t1_j40rykj wrote
Not American ; what's ballot? How it's work? Why not just simple vote?
toototabonappetit t1_j40sa45 wrote
AFAIK they indeed voted, but the results did not determine a clear representative.
It is my understanding that it is not only needed the majority of the votes, but it has to exceed a specific number. That's why it was done multiple times.
ETA: not American either, so I expect someone to correct me.
crepuscularmutiny t1_j40vro2 wrote
A ballot is another word for a vote, specifically its the piece of paper you wrote it on, though it's not literal since these votes are electronic. A simple majority was all that was needed, but Democrats voted uniformly for their own candidate and republicans had enough republican rebels against their most popular candidate that they couldn't secure a simple majority of votes.
TheDarkSideGamer t1_j42pyws wrote
The representatives in the house have to elect a speaker. To do that, one person has to obtain a simple majority of the votes from the representatives. In all of the rounds leading up to the last one, the votes were split so that no one candidate has the majority.
40for60 t1_j473o1d wrote
Electing the Speaker of the House is like electing a Prime Minister. The Speaker is the second most powerful political position in the US government and third in line for the Presidency after the Vice President. The House has the "power of the purse" meaning it controls the money. The House acts like shareholders, the Senate like a board of directors and the President like a CEO.
Big_Migger69 t1_j44z4nq wrote
Kevin McCarthy needed 218 votes from the House of Representatives to become the Speaker of the House on round 1 he didn't get enough, so another round of voting occurred a bit later fast forward 14 more rounds and by round 15 he got the votes.
chicagotim1 t1_j421dlc wrote
I think that this story has gotten an incredibly outsized amount of media attention. A congressional formality took an extra week than normal to get done. At the end of the day, that was about all that happened.
Hungry_Bus_9695 t1_j42fjib wrote
Well not really
The role of the house speaker is dramatically different from the past. The whole axis of congress gas shifted to give way more power to rank and file law makers. Now anytime a major split happens in republican legislation any law makers and call a snap vote to change speakers, this is a huge deal if its done during a vote to say raise the debt ceiling. It shows alot of disunity in the party and a lack of any political vision besides sowing chaos
It also shows that any leash the republican leadership had on the freedom caucus is now gone and they will push grind the government to a halt if you don’t play ball. Considering they want things like abortion bans, impeaching Biden, over turning the last election…etc
Weedyrainfall t1_j43ixnl wrote
The last time this happened, it was followed by civil war
chicagotim1 t1_j43q4hv wrote
The last time this did NOT happen was followed by a recession.
Completely spurious relationship.
TheBlooDred t1_j41co4h wrote
I hope this doesnt mean a civil war is next year
lafuntimes1 t1_j42w7rq wrote
Could you have possibly done a worse job visualizing this data? 90% of it is 1. Could have literally had a histogram OR 4 buckets. 3 votes and everyone else that matters. Hell your paragraph communicates data more efficiently than your graph.
JPAnalyst OP t1_j42wmor wrote
You seem really nice. S/ No wonder no one responds to your begging for sex on the internet.
lafuntimes1 t1_j42xcsa wrote
Sorry I like getting sloppy irl instead of with my data. Maybe my comments were a bit harsh but I would expect better from someone with ‘4 years’ of data experience. Great job deflecting though.
thelancemann t1_j45zybm wrote
I'm sure everything in government will go just as great as it did from 1859 to 1865
[deleted] t1_j42x5m4 wrote
[deleted]
Weedyrainfall t1_j43j2zv wrote
Do....you....guys not know what happened in 1861?
Some of y'all are talking like you have no idea what happened right after 1859....
gsurfer04 t1_j47b5j2 wrote
You can't assume everyone knows the precise chronology of American history.
himmmmmmmmmmmmmm t1_j443nj1 wrote
You said there’d be no math
[deleted] t1_j45skm3 wrote
[deleted]
Just_Looking_Busy t1_j43mgg0 wrote
I think this is absolutely fantastic. The fact that its taken this long for a party to say "no" to having someone installed as a leader of the people's house is wonderful. This should happen every time.
JPAnalyst OP t1_j43mp66 wrote
They said “yes” though.
LurkingChessplayer t1_j4532re wrote
I don’t understand why people are acting like this reflects poorly on house republicans? Like, they aren’t just blindly following the establishment, and are instead forcing concessions in return for their support. If people like AOC did this she’d be praised as fighting for the progressive wing, not lambasted for her party being disorganized
Tato7069 t1_j45hn8r wrote
Because there are 20 or so maniacs in the party that caused this just for the sake of being dicks essentially... They asked for things in return for their vote, they got those things and then still wouldn't vote for Kevin Mccarthy. Pretty sure either party would get shit for that.
LurkingChessplayer t1_j45yopk wrote
Really? McCarthy got the votes he needed in the end. I am 100% positive this would be praised if democrats did it.
JPAnalyst OP t1_j460hhc wrote
Right. Democrats can’t wear a tan suit, buy cookware, or fall off a bike without half of the country losing their God damned minds. Please have some self awareness for your own tribe.
LurkingChessplayer t1_j460v7g wrote
The tan suit is a decent example of republicans freaking out over something stupid…but cmon Biden falling off the bike was hilarious. You can’t be so biased that you think that wasn’t funny
ExploratoryCucumber t1_j41e3a9 wrote
I sure do hope the GOP gets around to collapsing before they go for their next coup
Tyrannical1 t1_j412osd wrote
Everyone’s making a big deal out of it taking 15 votes this time around…
Isn’t it more concerning that the 435 people we elect to collectively represent us and our wildly diverse needs and opinions rarely requires more than one vote to obtain a majority?